The true cost of wind...



But my dear chap - you can't posit that! It's blue-sky thinking with *sums*. That's not allowed, by order of JJ.
--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alzheimer's?
wrote:

Make that the 14th, and the second time in four days ...

On 14 Sep 2013 16:48:43 GMT, Terry Fields

--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Java Jive wrote:

That's up to you, but I suspect you won't be posting it much more.

Perhaps that's because your argument isn't good enough

OK, so you've got some numbers. Let's see how you bring your scientific expertise to bear on them.

Just like offshore oil, gas, wind.

So, let me see if I have this right.
Your Great Debunking Argument is BASED ON A GUESS.
The rest has been snipped as irrelevant.

Not on the basis of wishing it away, sunshine.

So, I'm not wrong, then.
And the Great Debunking Argument was brought to you by someone who claims this:
"As I've mentioned before, I do have scientific training. Perhaps that's why I'm consistently able to out argue you. But then, that's not exactly difficult, is it? Your standard of argument below is about that of a five year old child or worse. In your case, it would be better by far to keep quiet and let everyone think you are fool, than to keep making such posts and thereby remove all shadow of doubt"
Permit me to laugh my socks off.
Perhaps Java Jive should heed his own words, only substituting 'anti' for 'pro':
"If people were rational rather than pseudo-religious in their mindset, this subject would NEVER have been mentioned again after its first debunking, but this is what always happens in these debates, the anti-nuclear quasi-religion has taken over peoples' minds to the extent here that its adherents conveniently 'forget' those facts and calculations that don't support their quasi-religious beliefs".
QED
--
Terry Fields


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15 Sep 2013 07:55:04 GMT, Terry Fields

Seems so ...

Irrelevant to the point ...

It's based on a reasonable assumption. But if you like, try doubling that assumption, the figures still don't work out. Your problem is that the rate of return of yellow cake per unit area per unit time is at least an order of magnitude, probably two, less than it needs to be to make a workable system.

You've snipped it because it makes your idea look the absurdity that it really is.

More to the point, the technology is not going to work just because you wish it to do so.

You are wrong. The yield is at least an order of magnitude below what would be required, and that gap is unlikely to be sufficiently eroded by technological development, especially as when I last looked none appeared to be taking place anyway, while the environmental impact to get such a pitiful amount is absurdly out of proportion. People who vaunt nuclear have a habit of talking about its energy density - for a given amount of power: how many acres of open cast uranium ore vs how many acres of open cast coal, how many acres of spoil heaps, how much ash; or how many acres of wind turbines, etc. You can't get much less dense energy than the amounts of uranium in seawater. Using this method, there is effectively not the slightest chance of our achieving security of uranium supply within the ten year timescale required by WNA figures.
Getting uranium from the sea in sufficient quantity to be useful is no more realistic than covering the land with windmills to provide all UK's electrical energy needs. That is why it is a myth, and that is why here it is wheeled out as a last resort, when other arguments are failing.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Java Jive wrote:

Then why did you mention it?

Now well on the way:
"In 2012, ORNL researchers announced the successful development of a new absorbent material dubbed HiCap, which vastly outperforms previous best adsorbents, which perform surface retention of solid or gas molecules, atoms or ions. "We have shown that our adsorbents can extract five to seven times more uranium at uptake rates seven times faster than the world's best adsorbents," said Chris Janke, one of the inventors and a member of ORNL's Materials Science and Technology Division. HiCap also effectively removes toxic metals from water, according to results verified by researchers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory"
"Results were presented...at the fall meeting of the American Chemical Society in Philadelphia".
"In a direct comparison to the current state-of-the-art adsorbent, HiCap provides significantly higher uranium adsorption capacity, faster uptake and higher selectivity, according to test results. Specifically, HiCap's adsorption capacity is seven times higher (146 vs. 22 grams of uranium per kilogram of adsorbent) in spiked solutions containing 6 parts per million of uranium at 20 degrees Celsius. In seawater, HiCap's adsorption capacity of 3.94 grams of uranium per kilogram of adsorbent was more than five times higher than the world's best at 0.74 grams of uranium per kilogram of adsorbent. The numbers for selectivity showed HiCap to be seven times higher"

Your Great Debunking Argument was crap as it was only based on a guess and backed up by a suggestion that an order of maginitude was required in its rebuttal. That order of magnitude is well on the way to being delivered, today.

I'm quoting facts - you aren't.

That argument just fell over.

"As I've mentioned before, I do have scientific training. Perhaps that's why I'm consistently able to out argue you. But then, that's not exactly difficult, is it? Your standard of argument below is about that of a five year old child or worse. In your case, it would be better by far to keep quiet and let everyone think you are fool, than to keep making such posts and thereby remove all shadow of doubt"
Permit me to laugh my socks off. You have no arguments worthy of the name.
Perhaps you should heed your own words, only substituting 'anti' for 'pro':
"If people were rational rather than pseudo-religious in their mindset, this subject would NEVER have been mentioned again after its first debunking, but this is what always happens in these debates, the anti-nuclear quasi-religion has taken over peoples' minds to the extent here that its adherents conveniently 'forget' those facts and calculations that don't support their quasi-religious beliefs".
Let me know when you publish a peer-reviewed scientific paper.
--
Terry Fields


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15 Sep 2013 14:11:40 GMT, Terry Fields

Because offshore gas, oil, and wind don't work by cages suspended in the water, this process does. This gives it properties that are irrelevant to gas, oil, and wind.

I note that yet again you don't actually give a link ... but at least the quote allowed me to find it easily.
http://web.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20120821-00

So let's do a calculation on that:
325tYC/GWyr means that we would need 325000000/3.94 kg of adsorbent material, 82,487,310 kg, or about 82,500 tonnes; we are told only that it works seven times faster than the world's other best adsorbants, but that doesn't give us a direct timescale to work with, however to allow for that, we can try dividing the above figure by 7 to get some sort of ball-park. So that's about 12,000 tonnes.
"Scientists then remove the adsorbents from the water and the metals are readily extracted using a simple acid elution method. The adsorbent can then be regenerated and reused after being conditioned with potassium hydroxide."
So this 12,000 tonnes has to be physically removed from the water, it's much heavier now because it's full of water, treated to remove the uranium, treated to recondition it, and then placed back in the water again.
And how much energy, including carbon based energy, will be consumed in creating this vast tonnage, transporting it, deploying it, making all the chemicals, extracting the uranium, etc, etc? Has anyone even calculated it?
And how expensive is this going to be, remembering that even with currently very low spot price of U3O8 the cost of new nuclear is already on a par with onshore wind? The price at the moment is dominated by the cost of the nuclear plant, but this would add a huge slice of costs on top of that would seriously increase the cost of fuel in the balance.
And no way could we do it in the 10 years assured supply of nuclear fissile fuel that the WNA's figures tell us is all that we can be certain of.
This is beginning to sound as bad or worse than the admittedly difficult process of carbon capture, and you've been scathing enough of that in the past. Why, when it's nuclear, do you suddenly lose all critical faculty?

But, as others before hand, you haven't worked out their implications.

No. It just demolished you again.

Yet, I've just out argued you again. Strange that, isn't it?
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Java Jive wrote:

Oh, don't be silly. The security environment is the same for all.

Is it?

'Vast tonnage'? Ships heavier than that pass by endlessly. Some are even recovered having been sunk or stranded.
What do you balk at the mention of such figures?

How much does a nuclear generating plant weigh?
Your 12,000 tons is almost an irrelevancy.
Only today, they have righted a 112,000 ton ship in a one-off operation. An industrialised recovery process will be far cheaper, that's one of the major benefits of industrialisation.

No, because your argument starts on a false premise. The way to demolish them is to find the false premise with which they start.
--
Terry Fields


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

All his arguments start from false premises.
--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17 Sep 2013 08:45:18 GMT, Terry Fields

It isn't, but I'll let it pass.

Of course.

Because here we're talking about electrical energy generation, and to build all this stuff it and move itself around takes energy, lots of it, probably a good deal of it carbon based, and you haven't calculated how much.

I note that instead of answering the real question you introduce an irrelevancy like the weight of a nuclear generating plant, which is an irrelevancy because noone is planning to move it about every few months, let alone dunk it in the sea for a while, lift it out again, chemically treat the entirety of it twice over, then put it back again.

The energy consumed in manipulating and processing fuel directly subtracts from the bottom line both financially and energetically, and new nuclear is already the most expensive type of baseload generation.

That's certainly true, but you've only got ten years of certain supplies from elsewhere before this has to work as an industrialised process, and that has never been done before. It would certainly be cheaper and easier to recycle all existing nuclear waste than do this, but even that is currently considered too expensive. Carbon capture can not be very much worse than this, if at all, and at least that would allow us to use sources of fuel of which we have significant indigenous supplies, and which are much cheaper than nuclear fission.

Which you have failed to do. Like both the avid pro-nuclear types, as well as the green types you despise, you make exaggerated claims without being able to show with figures how they can be met.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Java Jive wrote:

Of course, nothing that you wrote above is exaggerated. Tim Streater has explained elsewhere why your doom-laden prediction about uranium supplies is wrong, with an explanation that could have been written 200 years ago. Yet you don't seem to be aware of it. Fancy trying your hand at Economics?
--
Terry Fields


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The WNA's own figures can be taken as being rather more authoritative than either you or Tim Streater.
On 17 Sep 2013 22:25:47 GMT, Terry Fields

--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'll repeat the quote I've posted elsewhere to the world nuclear web site. From time to time concerns are raised that the known resources might be insufficient when judged as a multiple of present rate of use. But this is the Limits to Growth fallacy, a major intellectual blunder recycled from the 1970s, which takes no account of the very limited nature of the knowledge we have at any time of what is actually in the Earth's crust. Our knowledge of geology is such that we can be confident that identified resources of metal minerals are a small fraction of what is there. Factors affecting the supply of resources are discussed further and illustrated in the Appendix.
www.world-nuclear.org
--
bert

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're missing the point, as so many others do ...

The point is NOT the total reserves, AFAIAA noone is questioning those, but DEMAND relative to SUPPLY, that is, the rate of consumption versus the rate of extraction. If you examine the data again which I've already linked so many times, you'll see that the WNA itself predicts that demand will outstrip supply somewhere around 2025. THAT is the point.
Electricity supply is generally considered to be of paramount strategic importance, and we in Britain don't have indigenous reserves of nuclear fissile fuel, so, if, as they do, the WNA's own figures show a likely shortfall within the lifecycle of any projected new nuclear build, that means we can't rely on nuclear fission as a strategic supply of power. By contrast we can rely on carbon-based generation as a strategic supply of power, because of the many different sources in the world, and the indigenous resources we have in the UK.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope they are referring to currently mined sources and there is ample new supply at todays extraction costs to keep us going to 2080. Just as has happened with oil.

There is currently no technology available that will make use of coal acceptable. When there is come back and talk to us about it. Just hoping something will turn up out of the magic of technological development is not a basis for an energy strategy. Nuclear on the other hand has a relatively small overall carbon footprint and a reasonably foreseeable fuel supply up to 2080. So over to you. Come back when you have a solution to coals problems and we'll go over to coal. If I had to choose I'd rather have a nuke on my doorstop than a Ferrybridge or Blyth B. Meanwhile stop wasting my money on useless windmills.
--
bert

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17/09/13 20:00, bert wrote:
There is currently no technology available that will make use of coal acceptable.
I think its perfectly acceptable to stick in in a fire and set a match to it.
When there is come back and talk to us about it. Just hoping something will turn up out of the magic of technological development is not a basis for an energy strategy. Nuclear on the other hand has a relatively small overall carbon footprint and a reasonably foreseeable fuel supply up to 2080. So over to you. Come back when you have a solution to coals problems and we'll go over to coal. If I had to choose I'd rather have a nuke on my doorstop than a Ferrybridge or Blyth B.
Solution to coals problems is very simply. Stick scrubbers on the smokestack. End of.

indeed.
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But the WNA's figures already take account of the known and planned increases in production, yet still project a shortfall.

That's a pity ...
http://www.worldenergy.org/publications/energy_policy_scenarios_to_2050/appendices/appendix_b_specialist_perspectives/921.asp
"Electricity generation technology is likely to be based on coal, and in the medium-term, on clean coal technologies. Large increases in electricity-generation capacity are anticipated in India and China, which will most likely utilise their indigenous coal resources. Together with revitalised coal programmes in North America and Europe, coal technology is likely to develop rapidly, moving through a series of evolutionary cycles from currently available sub-, critical, and super-critical technologies, culminating in the development and deployment of advanced technologies, e.g., integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC).
Key to using coal-based generation technologies, however, is the analogous development of pollution-control technologies. These technologies need to focus on micro-pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates and on the wider and pressing issue of carbon dioxide. Further development and deployment of carbon capture-and-storage technologies is essential."
... and ...
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/weo-2012/#d.en.26099
"Taking all new developments and policies into account, the world is still failing to put the global energy system onto a more sustainable path. Global energy demand grows by more than one-third over the period to 2035 in the New Policies Scenario (our central scenario), with China, India and the Middle East accounting for 60% of the increase. Energy demand barely rises in OECD countries, although there is a pronounced shift away from oil, coal (and, in some countries, nuclear) towards natural gas and renewables. Despite the growth in low- carbon sources of energy, fossil fuels remain dominant in the global energy mix, supported by subsidies that amounted to $523 billion in 2011, up almost 30% on 2010 and six times more than subsidies to renewables. The cost of fossil-fuel subsidies has been driven up by higher oil prices; they remain most prevalent in the Middle East and North Africa, where momentum towards their reform appears to have been lost. Emissions in the New Policies Scenario correspond to a long-term average global temperature increase of 3.6 °C."
... and this Prof Muller's attack on the IPCC after climategate ...

http://youtu.be/VbR0EPWgkEI#t=2m4s

http://youtu.be/VbR0EPWgkEI#t=2m4s

... but the point relevant to this discussion is ...
36:20 forwards Series of graphs show the importance of carbon-based fuels in the future.

Not for a country that has no indigenous supply of fuel to fall back upon.

As linked above, carbon capture or no, it will be the predominant means of generating electricity for the forseeable future.

Why are you attacking me, I'm not wasting your money on windmills, or even wind turbines?
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nothing new in that. We all know China and India are building coal fired power stations.

So come back when the solution is found - if ever. Meanwhile what's your energy strategy given that many of our coal fired power stations are being shut down.

--
bert

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You're missing the point. We're going to have to use carbon-based fuels anyway, regardless of whether a solution is found.

--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
How many more times do I have to link this? http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Uranium-Markets/
Bottom graph entitled: "Reference Case Supply"
The red line denoting 'Reference Demand' crosses above the top of the stack of all supplies a little before 2026, which is 10-15 years from now. The green Upper Demand line crosses next year, but I don't think that is actually going to happen. Hence I've been generally quoting either 2025-ish or 10-15 years from now.
wrote:

--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So if thats the case, let the French buld the new nuke at Hnkley. They get £95 per MWh but can't fuel it. So no generation and no payments. The only problem is the loan guarantees that EdF want. £10 billion or so.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.